Video of Encounter Between Robert Hunter and Kaiko Maru

Here is the link for those interested. It certainly seems to contradict Watson's claim that "If we rammed them, we would simply admit it."

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/GPAS9.wmv

Letter of Protest
concerning Sea Shepherd actions against Japan’s whale research.

Following last year’s harassment, from 8 to 14 February 2007 Sea Shepherd perpetrated criminal obstructive actions against Japan’s whale research vessels operating in the Antarctic. Japan’s whale research is carried out making use of Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd. vessels by the Institute of Cetacean Research under a special permit issued by the government of Japan pursuant to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Accordingly, Japan’s whale research in the Antarctic is perfectly legal.

This year, Sea Shepherd resorted to throwing a large number of smoke bombs and bottles containing a harmful chemical substance on the decks of the mother ship Nisshin Maru and the non-lethal research dedicated sighting vessel Kaiko Maru, resulting in two injured crewmen. Sea Shepherd malicious attempts against the research vessels also included releasing ropes and nets to entangle their screw. Furthermore, the two Sea Shepherd vessels came to either side of the nonresistant Kaiko Maru stopping her from continuing sailing and rammed her three times, causing big damage to her hull.

Such vicious and reckless actions by Sea Shepherd not only violate the international agreements established in order to prohibit piracy and to guarantee the safety of navigation. They are inexcusable criminal acts that go against the practices of good seamanship. What is more, they are spiteful and mindless terrorism perpetrated in disregard of human life.

We condemn these actions by Sea Shepherd in the strongest possible terms. We strongly request that this kind of terrorist behavior which endangers human life is not repeated in future. Last year, the International Whaling Commission adopted by consensus a resolution declaring that the Commission and its contracting Governments do not condone any such wrongful actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to whale research activities of vessels at sea. We also appeal strongly to the international community to refrain from providing support in any form, including their granting of ship nationality, to such terrorist organization.


28 February 2007
Hiroshi Hatanaka
Director-General, The Institute of Cetacean Research

Kazuo Yamamura
President, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I posted a video about a disputed encounter at sea in which both sides claimed the other side rammed them.

To me, at issue is violence and terrorism in support of one's cause.

Secondly, I take issue with what I perceive as racist attacks against Japanese.

I posted a video which shows the encounter. Did you watch it?

The issue of whaling is one issue. The issue of violence and terrorism is another.

Watch the video and imagine you are the woman who is filming it.

By the way, Redstone, that wasn't asking nicely. Wanna talk or wanna scream? I don't want to scream.

that they're doing "research," when what they're actually doing is providing whale meat to restaurants in Japan.

they could be Japanes, American, Latvian, or Armenian, and I'd still call them out for the two-faced, lying sons of bitches that they are.

"Research," my ass.

Redstone

This video makes a liar out of Captain Watson.

Besides, if whaling justifies any kind of retaliation in your mind because to you it is morally repugnant, why is abortion bombing any less justified to those who feel a "holocaust" is going on? Is it simply because you feel you are right and they are wrong based on YOUR moral compass?

And besides, nice broken logic on comparing this with bombing abortion clinics.

Why do you keep pushing that analogy that simply is not logical?

What's your interest in Japanese whaling and abortion-clinic bombing...it's damn odd that someone would consider the two to be allied issues.

Did I say odd? I should have said bizarre, because those are two issues as far from being linkable as any two issues can be.

Redstone

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you are so outraged that someone is trying to stop the for profit hunting of whales by the Japanese, in direct contravention of treaties that they have signed, and their cynical claims that those whales (whose meat is sold to restaurants all over Japan) are killed not for profit, but for research?

Too bad I can't get an answer to that question from you, no matter how many times I ask.

But I'm getting tired of asking. Answer or don't; I don't give a red rat's ass. Carry on, and crow about "beating" me, and enjoy yourself. I'm done with you...it started out being amusing, but it's getting boring.

Redstone

Bye.

and immoral. The Maru and the like deserve to be sunk as far as I am concerned.

They think bombing abortion clinics are justified.

Is it possible to have a discussion in which we seperate the issue of abortion from the issue of whether or not it is ok to bomb clinics?

Why, specifically, are you doing this? I don't understand.

Redstone

I am at this point trying to uncover the fact that hysterical arguments based solely upon one's own personal standard of what is right blinds one to the moral wrongness that one may be committing oneself.

It is called hypocrisy. That is te true two-faced nature of people. Where right and left come together. I see it in demands to ban words. I see it in the demands to ban pornography. I see it in the advocacy of violence in one's cause.

Hypocrisy bugs me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the Japanese whaling program of being in favor of bombing abortion clinics?

That's a BIG stretch right there, buddy.

You REALLY need some rest.

Redstone

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You don't think it's a bit misleading to compare Sea Shepherd's actions with "violence", "terrorism", and abortion clinic bombings? Is the use of force, in any degree, to prevent any act, whether legal or ILLEGAL, terrorism?

Your constant comparison with abortion clinic bombings is ridiculous to anyone who has done their homework on the issue. Abortion is legal; killing whales in a whale sanctuary is not. Abortion clinic bombers are reckless murderers. Sea Shepherd has been operating for over 30 years and has never hurt a single person. A far more truthful comparison would be the following situation (partly hypothetical, for the purpose of illustration -- points #3 and up):

1) Abortion is legal.
2) Killing doctors who perform abortions is of course not.
3) The police and the government state publicly that they (naturally) consider the
actions of the bombers illegal and immoral.
4) No actual effort is made to stop the bombers.
5) An independent, donor-funded group steps up and enforces the law, chasing off
or disarming the bombers, while NEVER attempting to or actually injuring anyone. Oh and that same law gives them express right to do so, to protect the doctors.

The only difference is that the laws are international ones and not domestic, so it's easier for the public to ignore and/or be fed official propaganda on why the law isn't being enforced.

p.s. the article you quote is from the whaler's site, and written by them, so on its face is no more or less a propaganda piece than anything Paul Watson writes. They released it immediately after the collision; probably had it written and signed before the incident even occurred, but that's just my speculation.

And why is it so unbelievable that Sea Shepherd wouldn't take credit for the ramming, when it's a tactic they're specifically equipped for, and generally proud of, as a deterrent? I know that they agreed not to ram anyone, if they were assisted by a certain government, but that assistance never came, so far as I'm aware.

<edited for grammar>

"Never argue with someone who has the same answer for every question."

Don't get me wrong; that was an excellent and thoughtful post from you...it's just addressed to someone who has some kind of bizarre agenda and will NOT listen to anything you may have to say.

There are a few of those here at DU.

Redstone

And I'm a repeat offender, lol.

:toast:

Sorry Redstone, but you jumped the shark on this one. Ramming ships is wrong, regardless if they are whalers or not. To assert otherwise is to give license to those who kill doctors or behead infidels.

:eyes:

Redstone

Sorry guys, this has devolved into a flamewar.